Re: Seismic Unix
> This is the reason why I would like to make a package of it. Problem
> is - the license forbids selling the package:
>
> The simple repackaging and selling of the SU package as is, is
> expressly forbidden without the prior written permission of the
> Colorado School of Mines. Any such arrangement will carry the
> restriction that only a modest profit above reproduction charges may
> be realized by the reproducer.
You could gently ask about a license change. In answer to a
question on -legal a few days ago, I suggested the Artistic
license:
A> 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this
A> Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
A> Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However,
A> you may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly
A> commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software
A> distribution provided that you do not advertise this Package as a
A> product of your own.
A>
A> "Reasonable copying fee" is whatever you can justify on the
A> basis of media cost, duplication charges, time of people involved,
A> and so on. (You will not be required to justify it to the
A> Copyright Holder, but only to the computing community at large
A> as a market that must bear the fee.)
A>
A> "Freely Available" means that no fee is charged for the item
A> itself, though there may be fees involved in handling the item.
A> It also means that recipients of the item may redistribute it
A> under the same conditions they received it.
To be completely honest with the author, you might mention that
the Artistic leicense is only DFSG-compliant because the
`no-selling' clause is so diluted that it's unenforceable. I
like to explain to authors that using the GPL (which allows
selling) does not mean someone will make a bundle selling your
stuff. In fact, including the software in a widely distributed
and net-known distribution such as Debian just about guarantees
people can't make a bundle selling your stuff. You can get it
for free or very cheaply so easily. I convinced an author to go
from a `no-selling' license to the GPL with this argument.
Peter
Reply to: